Balance-of-Power Logic

In essence, what the anti-globalist movement in America actually overlooks and fails to realize is that the so-called “globalists” in the American mainstream are not authentic or true globalists and internationalists. In reality, the people in the American mainstream whom the anti-globalist movement in America deem as globalists are actually bigoted, genocidal, and racist neocons who are anything but globalist or internationalist in nature. 

In turn, the true identity and nature of those in the American mainstream who are globalist in appearance only affects the global balance of power, given that a more globalized world requires a truly globalist and internationalist outlook and weltanschauung. It follows that “war is the continuing fact” until the complex and mysterious balance of power principle renders its ultimate result and outcome. And at the moment, the global balance of power is not in favor of the ‘Collective West’ because of the true nature and identity of the people who wield mainstream positions of power in the West.

Moreover, it has been argued that power exists “only when a state exercises control or influence, and therefore it can be measured only after the outcome is determined.” And as John Mearsheimer wrote: “Simply put, the most powerful state is the one that prevails in a dispute.” Moreover, it is not the side with the material advantage that is likely to prevail in such a dispute, as we have learned from our experience in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The truth is that “non-material factors often provide one combatant with a decisive advantage over the other.” Thus, while the “balance of resources” is an important factor in the balance of power, it is not the most important factor. 

One can argue that there actually is an invisible and subtle power imbalance at the moment between the world’s major powers which has led to the conflagration of conflict in Europe. In turn, the material factor cannot fully explain the conflagration of the conflict. If the material factor were enough of a deterrent against the conflagration of conflict, then Russia would have never initiated the conflict with Europe last year by virtue of invading Ukraine, given the West’s material advantage. And if a “defensive coalition” against the Taliban failed, then how will a “defensive coalition” against Russia succeed given the current balance of power dynamics? 

In a sense, the West has long “underestimated” both the power and resolve of Eastern peoples and nations. And as Mearsheimer rightly noted, all states follow a “balance-of-power logic” except for the hegemonic power, which in our case is the ‘Collective West.’ In a sense, a ‘balance-of-power logic’ is a lifestyle and a mentality and a way of thinking. And when a hegemonic power fails to follow the “balance-of-power logic” which is universal in character and nature, then it leads to “miscalculations” which will prove costly for the hegemonic power over the long run. In sum, there are two core assumptions in a “balance-of-power logic” and in the concept of equilibrium which pervades all the social sciences, as Hans Morgenthau argued. He wrote:

“Two assumptions are at the foundation of all such equilibriums: first, that the elements to be balanced are necessary for society or are entitled to exist and, second, that without a state of equilibrium among them one element will gain ascendancy over the others, encroach upon their interests and rights, and may ultimately destroy them. Consequently, it is the purpose of all such equilibriums to maintain the stability of the system without destroying the multiplicity of the elements composing it.” 

Morgenthau added:

“If the goal were stability alone, it could be achieved by allowing one element to destroy or overwhelm the others and take their place. Since the goal is stability plus the preservation of all the elements of the system, the equilibrium must aim at preventing any element from gaining ascendancy over the others. The means employed to maintain the equilibrium consist in allowing the different elements to pursue their opposing tendencies up to the point where the tendency of one is not so strong as to overcome the tendency of the others, but strong enough to prevent the others from overcoming its own.” 

Hence, everything is about balance and equilibrium, and there is both universality and self-evident truth in such concepts and principles. The detriment to our lives and to our collective and individual well-being arises from the denial or negligence of the universality and self-evident truth of these particular concepts and principles.